No, but if an article just had the sae thing listed over and over again (especially on matters of race, religion etc etc.) it comes off as if its trying to say something.

Especially since it doesn't give all that much context.

But those two examples I gave are exactly the same thing. Ofcourse its trying to say something. "Rich white man shares opinion on female reproductive rights" is trying to say something to. The two messages are uncannily similar.

The whole point is that you don't need context, just like you don't need context for the other two= beyond what the title gives you.

But those two examples I gave are exactly the same thing. Ofcourse its trying to say something. "Rich white man shares opinion on female reproductive rights" is trying to say something to. The two messages are uncannily similar.

The whole point is that you don't need context, just like you don't need context for the other two= beyond what the title gives you.

YEs you do, context is very important, if you take a phrase out of context it can easily mean the opposite of what you meant to say. Context is just as important as Content. They complete eachother and decrease the chance for misunderstandings or for it being taken the wrong way.

Edit: Look I will freely admit that maybe im misunderstanding what the article is trying to do or say, hell I probably am for all i know, but its partially their fault for just throwing something up without context to help get their point across.

YEs you do, context is very important, if you take a phrase out of context it can easily mean the opposite of what you meant to say. Context is just as important as Content. They complete eachother and decrease the chance for misunderstandings or for it being taken the wrong way.

Edit: Look I will freely admit that maybe im misunderstanding what the article is trying to do or say, hell I probably am for all i know, but its partially their fault for just throwing something up without context to help get their point across.

But you don't have any problem with "Rich white man shares opinion on female reproductive rights", despite that being the exact same thing. There is just as much context in both. Do all white men do this thing (whether this thing is kill to feel powerful or try and regulate female bodies)? No. Do other non-white, non-male people do this thing? Yes. Is it note worthy how many white male people do this thing, and therefor possibly a problem we should address? Probably.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it comes off as you agree with one premise, but disagreeing with another, and so applying negatives to the first you ignore/look over in the second.

Plus for all your talk of not understanding the article, you did your best to disprove it with your first post, which means you clearly understood the point it was trying to make, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to try and disprove it.

But you don't have any problem with "Rich white man shares opinion on female reproductive rights", despite that being the exact same thing. There is just as much context in both. Do all white men do this thing (whether this thing is kill to feel powerful or try and regulate female bodies)? No. Do other non-white, non-male people do this thing? Yes. Is it note worthy how many white male people do this thing, and therefor possibly a problem we should address? Probably.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it comes off as you agree with one premise, but disagreeing with another, and so applying negatives to the first you ignore/look over in the second.

I don't even know anymore to be honest. :/

*shrugs* I still say I needed more context and I say lets leave it here because its just gonna go in circles and no one ever wins a thing like this, we all just come out looking silly in the end and pouting like kids

*shrugs* I still say I needed more context and I say lets leave it here because its just gonna go in circles and no one ever wins a thing like this, we all just come out looking silly in the end and pouting like kids

I really wish I could take this at face value and not see someone looking for a way to bow out of an argument without having to admit they were wrong. I'm sorry if I come off harshly Lustful Bride, the cycle is just wearing my down. I see something so clearly, but other's don't. What am I meant to do? I am so sure I am not wrong, but then, evidently so is the other person. How do I know they are the ones who are right, and what exactly am I meant to do with that information, other than live in perpetual uncertainty because I believe these things for a reason and the opposing views of others won't automatically change this?

I really wish I could take this at face value and not see someone looking for a way to bow out of an argument without having to admit they were wrong. I'm sorry if I come off harshly Lustful Bride, the cycle is just wearing my down. I see something so clearly, but other's don't. What am I meant to do? I am so sure I am not wrong, but then, evidently so is the other person. How do I know they are the ones who are right, and what exactly am I meant to do with that information, other than live in perpetual uncertainty because I believe these things for a reason and the opposing views of others won't automatically change this?

Cause I am bowing out, but not because I don't want to admit im wrong. (Which I kind of did already in a previous post) but cause I don't want an argument, cause I suck at arguments, at discussions. I cant get anything out without looking like an idiot. (and yet I keep coming back, I must subconsciously love the humiliation I feel whenever I post something here)

As for the rest of that, those are oppinions. That's why there are so many different viewpoints, cause nothing outside of science and math is ever 100% in this world.

The civil thing to do when someone wishes to bow out of a conversation - whatever their reasoning - is to allow them to do so. Continuing to push the issue on that person is not going to win you any points, and may end up further entrenching them.

Sometimes people need time to process information. In those cases, allowing them that time and letting them rejoin the conversation at their own discretion is more likely to at least earn you their respect.

YEs you do, context is very important, if you take a phrase out of context it can easily mean the opposite of what you meant to say. Context is just as important as Content. They complete eachother and decrease the chance for misunderstandings or for it being taken the wrong way.

Edit: Look I will freely admit that maybe im misunderstanding what the article is trying to do or say, hell I probably am for all i know, but its partially their fault for just throwing something up without context to help get their point across.

The points I saw there:

1. White men are, in fact, vastly overrepresented in spree killings and hate-motivated violence.2. These killings happen all the damn time (seriously, those examples were from just over one month.) This is the 'context' you felt was lacking.3. Despite (1) and (2), we continue to treat white male killers as 'isolated incidents', and pretend there's nothing in our culture that contributes to it. This includes concerted efforts to ignore, gloss over, or erase hate-based motivations in many cases.4. We do (3) and simultaneously give special consideration to white spree killers that we wouldn't give to their victims - including pretending that they're isolated and unconnected to anything that might fuel their hatred and violence.

1. White men are, in fact, vastly overrepresented in spree killings and hate-motivated violence.2. These killings happen all the damn time (seriously, those examples were from just over one month.) This is the 'context' you felt was lacking.3. Despite (1) and (2), we continue to treat white male killers as 'isolated incidents', and pretend there's nothing in our culture that contributes to it. This includes concerted efforts to ignore, gloss over, or erase hate-based motivations in many cases.4. We do (3) and simultaneously give special consideration to white spree killers that we wouldn't give to their victims - including pretending that they're isolated and unconnected to anything that might fuel their hatred and violence.

The moment the US/UN got involved it escalated even more than it already had.

"No let's not look for diplomatic solutions, cause we are the US and we don't do diplomatics, let's bring even more guns into the area and let's drag the UN in as well. Hey UN puppets, are you in? Why certainly big brother cause we don't give a fuck about Ukraine, we just want to be the best in class and please out big brother."

nah I'm not surprised Ukrane want's it's territory back DNR groups want to break away, such ceasefires never seem to last long. Especially with outside powers involved, in this case one (Russian Federation) sending in their own troops and guns while another power (EU/US/UN) sends their opponents bigger and bigger weapons.

But it broke down so it counts as news.

If we look at whom was backing whom and why it's obvious it was never going to last. Especially after some poorly trained DNR jackass used an Anti-air system to shoot down a civilian plane (seriously this is why most major powers are hesitant to give anti-air and anti-armor weapons to militia, incidentally this is why the US hasn't given the kurdish forces fighting ISIS free rocket launchers and why china doesn't sell AA weapons in africa). After that investigation ended and the corpses removed the RF blocked further UN investigation (yay security council status) and the two sides were going to go right back to skirmishing.

The EU wants the country who chose to join them to actually join their Economic Bloc as a stable power. The US has a long standing treaty with Ukraine and is fairly pissed after the RF sorta swept the Crimea out from under Ukraine (weather you think the RF was justified or not it left the US a bit butthurt that it happened so fast and dirty.). The RF wants a new pro-russian state that gives them a comfy land corridor to their newly conquered Crimea. Ukrane is pissed at DNR rebels and ethnic russians wind up getting the political backblast, DNR rebels are expelling non-russian minorities and some DNR militias intentionally kill homosexuals. The UN is trying to keep it all from devolving into a world war clusterfuck.

The UN is trying to keep it all from devolving into a world war clusterfuck.

By sending weapons? For thirty years zero fucks were given about the unrest in eastern Ukraine. Then the pro Russian government gets overthrown and the people in the east fight back against that and suddenly it's news.

If they really wanted to de escalate things, they'd open the dialog and start talking. Try to give the people the autonomy they want WITHIN Ukraine, because that is all they wanted. The Russian minorities wanted to be treated as equal by the Ukrainian government but nobody gave a fuck. Now it's the other way around and suddenly everybody cares.

De-escalate by talking. Not sending American/Western trained troops into the area.

I will leave it for now. Gladly take it to pm or a new topic but this isn't the place for this.

Terrorist attack in a Mali hotel leaves 12 people dead. They were on the run from the Mali military after a failed attack on a base and decided to kill as many civies as they could while passing by the hotel.

In Russia Banned western foods are being thrown to a crematorium.....why not just give it to the homeless or the poor? This is such a wasted opportunity to A: Get good publicity and B: Do something useful with food, im sure there are plenty of hungry people who would like it.

Okay, I usually don't show a lot of sympathy for anyone who provides content to Fox News. However, this article just crossed my feed, and it provides a cutting commentary on what kind of people are watching it. As those of you who watched the GOP debates probably recall, Megyn Kelly called Trump out on how he has referred to women. (Seeing as a good 50% or so of the people in the US are women, this kind of attitude might be important for a candidate to consider. Or for his potential constituents to be aware of.)

Trump reacted in his typical 'make no apologies and take no prisoners' fashion. And so did the viewers. A search on Topsy.com that tracked the pairing of Ms. Kelly's name with a number of sexist slurs showed that the combination skyrocketed just after the debates. (The actual search phrase is given under the graph in the article.)

Two people stabbed to death in a strange knife attack at an IKEA store in Västerås, Sweden (yes, it's pronounced almost like in GoT). One person arrested, apprently the same one that held the knife.

Very odd and unsettling - apparently it happened at the kitchenware department, though it's not clear whether the knife was actually grabbed on the spot (I don't think so, those kinds of things tend to be wrapped in hard plastic and carton).

Both random madcap killing sprees in public and terrorism are very rare around here, so we'll have to see what the police get to say about this - I really hope this isn't some kind of looney jihadist act.